GMO 2.0 Rush What Could Go Wrong? What You Should Know

healthy living » gmo news The New (Sneaky) GMO 2.0 Rush What Could Go Wrong? What You Should Know.

BY STACY MALKAN

re genetically engineered foods the solution for feeding a world crowded Awith 9 billion people? The chemical companies really want you to think so. Their propaganda machines are hard at work spin- ish only in headlines, far from the farm fields as safe” (GRAS), the Times reported the agen- ning tales that high-tech foods of the future where it’s intended to grow?” asked Tom Phil- cy instead “expressed concern that it has never will feed the hungry, cure the blind, and deliver pott in Mother Jones. “The short answer is that been consumed by humans and may be an al- us from climate change. the plant breeders have yet to concoct varieties lergen.” This hopeful vision blooms across the main- of it that work as well in the field as existing FDA officials wrote in a 2015 memo, “FDA stream media and in classrooms with hardly rice strains. . .When you tweak one thing in a believes the arguments presented, individually a serious question in reply. A recent tweet genome, such as giving rice the ability to gen- and collectively, do not establish the safety of tagged to the chemical industry’s PR website erate beta-carotene, you risk changing other soy leghemoglobin for consumption, nor do @GMOAnswers celebrates “6th grade students things, like its speed of growth.” they point to a general recognition of safety.” brainstorming big biotech ideas to #Feedthe9.” In other words, nature is complex and ge- But as the Times story explained, the FDA did Student ideas included “breed carrots to have netic engineering can produce unexpected not say the GMO heme was unsafe, and the more vitamins” and “corn that will grow in results. Consider the case of the Impossible company did not need the approval of FDA to harsh winter conditions.” It all sounds so Burger. The plant-based burger that “bleeds” is sell its burger anyway. promising until you take a closer look at the made possible by genetically engineering yeast So Impossible Burger is on the market with realities behind the rhetoric. to resemble leghemoglobin, a substance found the company’s assurances of safety, and most For starters, in a country that already leads in the roots of soybean plants. The GMO soy consumers are in the dark about what’s in it. the world in production of genetically modi- leghemoglobin breaks down into a protein While the GMO process is explained on the fied organisms (GMOs), millions go hungry. called “heme,” which gives the burger meat- website, it is not marketed that way at the Reducing food waste, not GMOs, is the key to like qualities—its blood-red color and sizzle point of sale. On a recent visit to a Bay Area world food security, according to experts at the on the grill—without the environmental and restaurant that sells the Impossible Burger, a United Nations. And, although they have been ethical impacts of meat production. But the customer asked if the burger was genetically on the market for more than 20 years, most modified soy leghemoglobin also breaks down modified. He was inaccurately told no. GMO foods are engineered to survive pesti- into 46 other proteins that have not been in the Lack of government oversight, unknown cide spraying, (meaning that they arrive at the human diet before and could pose safety risks. health risks, unintended consequences, and grocery store having been thoroughly doused As a New York Times headline described the consumers left in the dark—these are recur- with chemicals), and have no consumer ben- situation, “Impossible Burger’s ‘Secret Sauce’ ring themes in the unfolding narrative about efits —despite decades of hyped-up promises Highlights the Challenges of Food Tech.” The the Wild West of genetic engineering experi- for higher nutrients and heartier crops. story was based on documents obtained by mentation that is galloping toward a store near Vitamin-A-enhanced golden rice, for exam- ETC Group and Friends of the Earth under a you. ple—“the rice that could save a million kids a Freedom of Information request—documents year,” according to a Time magazine cover 17 the company probably hoped would never see A GMO by Any Other Name . . . years ago—has failed to reach the market de- the light of day. When Impossible Foods asked Synthetic biology, CRISPR, gene editing, gene spite millions spent on development. “If gold- the Food and Drug Administration to confirm silencing: These terms describe the new it- en rice is such a panacea, why does it flour- its GMO ingredient was “generally recognized eration of genetically engineered crops, food

32 MARCH 2018 healthy living » gmo news ceutical agent are all in the genetic experimen- exactly where the apples are landing, but they tation pipeline. An all-male “terminator cattle” won’t be labeled GMO. animals, and ingredients that companies are project—with the code name “Boys Only”— Gene editing techniques such as CRISPR, sneaking into products as fast as they can get aims to create a bull that will father only male TALEN, or zinc fingered nucleuses are used away with it. offspring, thereby “skewing the odds toward to cut DNA to make small genetic changes The old method of genetic engineering, maleness and making the (meat) industry or insert genetic material. These methods are called transgenics, involves transferring genes more efficient,” reported MIT Technology Re- faster and more precise than the old trans- from one species to another (or within a spe- view. genic methods. But the lack of government cies). With the new genetic engineering meth- oversight raises concerns. “There can still be ods—what some environmental groups call What could go wrong? off-target and unintended effects,” explains GMOs 2.0—companies are tampering with The only GMO animal on the market so far is Michael Hansen, PhD, senior scientist of Con- nature in new and possibly riskier ways. They the AquaAdvantage salmon, engineered with sumers Union. “When you alter the genetics of can delete genes, turn genes on or off, or even the genes of an eel, via transgenics, to grow living things they don’t always behave as you create whole new DNA sequences on a com- faster. The fish is already being sold in Canada, expect. This is why it’s crucial to thoroughly puter. All these new techniques are GMOs in but the company won’t say where, and US sales study health and environmental impacts, but the way consumers and the U.S. Patent Office are held up due to “labeling complications.” these studies aren’t required.” consider them to be—DNA is altered in labs The urge for secrecy makes sense from a sales A non-browning CRISPR mushroom “es- in ways that can’t occur in nature, and used to perspective: Seventy-five percent of respon- capes US regulation,” as Nature reported in make products that can be patented. dents in a 2013 New York Times poll said they 2016. A new CRISPR canola oil, engineered There are a few basic types of GMOs 2.0 1. Synthetic biology GMOs involve changing or creating DNA to artificially synthesize com- pounds rather than extract them from natural sources. Examples include genetically engineering yeast or algae to create flavors such as vanillin, stevia, and citrus, or fragrances like patchouli, rose oil, and clearwood—all of which may already be in products. Some companies are touting lab-grown ingredients as a solution for sustainability. But the devil is in the details that companies are not disclosing. What are the feedstocks? Some synthetic biology products depend on sugar from chemical-intensive monocultures or other polluting feedstocks such as fracked gas. There are also concerns that engineered algae could escape into the environment and become living pollution. And what is the impact on farmers who depend on sustainably grown crops? Farmers around the world are worried that lab-grown substitutes, falsely marketed as “natural,” could put them out of business. For generations, would not eat GMO fish, and about two-thirds to tolerate herbicides, is in stores now and farmers in Mexico, Madagascar, Africa, and said they would not eat meat that had been ge- may even be called “non-GMO,” according Paraguay have cultivated natural and organic netically modified. to Bloomberg, since the US Department of vanilla, shea butter, stevia. In Haiti, farming Gene silencing techniques such as RNA Agriculture has “taken a pass” on regulating vetiver grass for perfume oil supports up to interference (RNAi) can turn genes off to cre- CRISPR crops. The story noted that Monsan- 60,000 small growers, helping to bolster an ate particular traits. The non-browning Arc- to, DuPont, and Dow Chemical have “stepped economy ravaged by earthquakes and storms. tic Apple was engineered with RNAi to turn through the regulatory void” and struck licens- Does it make sense to move this economic en- down the expression of genes that cause apples ing deals to use the gene-editing technology. gine to South San Francisco and feed factory- to turn brown and mushy. As the company ex- And that raises another red flag with the farmed sugar to yeast to make cheaper vetiver? plains on its website, “When the apple is bit- narrative that new GMOs will provide con- Who will benefit, and who will lose out, in the ten, sliced, or otherwise bruised . . . no yucky sumer benefits that the old transgenic meth- high-tech crop revolution? brown apple left behind.” Are consumers actu- ods didn’t. “Just because the techniques are ally asking for this trait? Ready or not, here it different doesn’t mean the traits will be,” Dr. 2. Genetically engineered fish and animals: comes. The first GMO Arctic Apple, a Gold- Hansen pointed out. “The old method of ge- Dehorned cattle, naturally castrated pigs, and en Delicious, began heading for test markets netic engineering was used mostly to make chicken eggs engineered to contain a pharma- in the Midwest last month. Nobody is saying plants resist herbicides and increase sales of

34 MARCH 2018 herbicides. The new gene editing techniques will probably be used in much the same way, but there are some new twists.” Corporate Greed Versus Consumer Needs The world’s largest agrichemical companies own a majority of the world’s seeds and pesti- cides, and they are consolidating power in the hands of just three multinational corporations. Bayer and Monsanto are closing in on a merg- er, ChemChina has acquired Syngenta, and DowDuPont Pioneer just announced it is spin- ning out a new stand-alone ag business called Corteva Agriscience, based on a combination of words meaning “heart” and “nature.” But no matter what re-branding tricks they try, these corporations have a nature we already know -they all have long, sordid histories of hid- ing the health risks of dangerous products and leaving behind toxic messes: dioxin, Bhopal, teflon, PCBs, napalm, Agent Orange, chlorpy- rifos, atrazine, dicamba . . . to name just a few scandals. The future of high-tech food, under the stewardship of agribusiness and chemical corporations, is not hard to guess: more of what they are already trying to sell us – more types of crops genetically engineered to survive pes- ticides and drive up pesticide sales, and food animals engineered to grow faster and fit bet- ter in confined conditions, with pharmaceuti- cals to help. It’s a great vision for the future of corporate profits and concentration of wealth and power, but not so great for farmers, the environment, or consumers who are demanding a different food future. Growing numbers of consumers want real, natural food and products. They want to know what’s in their food, how it is being produced, and where it’s coming from. For those who want to be in the know about what they are eating, there is thankfully still a sure- fire way to avoid old and new GMOs—buy and source organic. The Non-GMO Project veri- fied certification also ensures products are not genetically engineered or made with synthetic biology. It will be important for the natural foods industry to hold the line on the integrity of these certifications against the wild stampede of new GMOs.

Stacy Malkan is author of Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry and co-director of US Right to Know, a non- profit consumer and public health watchdog group. She also works with ETC Group and Friends of the Earth to educate consumers about GMOs 2.0.

COMMONGROUNDMAG.COM 35